- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hitler's Speeches With Subtitles... An Incredible Leader and Horrible Man.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 9:57 pm
Posted on 1/10/14 at 9:57 pm
LINK
I have believed for a long time that the word "great" can in some ways apply to bad men. Hitler is the perfect example. He led people in incredible ways. He energized them. He motivated them. He gave them faith. He uplifted them.
He murdered them. He judged them. He sent armies against them. He was a bastion of hope. He was feared. He saved their economy. He destroyed families.
Hitler may very well be the greatest leader the world has ever seen. In that sense, in the historical sense, in his ability to rally a nation, to lift it up from abject misery and more, to instill pride, to stabilize and to create a fighting force, he was great.
The ability to lead is important. What needs to be understood (and never can be by the average person) is where that leadership is heading. Is the United States likely to ever see a leader in any way comparable to Hitler?
Note: This thread isn't comparing anyone to Hitler. Barack Obama has done some of the same things in terms of giving hope and stabilizing. The same can be said of Reagan. Ignoring his tyranny and lack of regard for human life (which are huge things to ignore), Hitler accomplished many of the goals people today seem to want accomplished. The issue I'm addressing here deals with only the ability to rally support and seem godlike.
Liberals: Don't bring up George Bush. People hated him.
Conservatives: Don't bring up Barack Obama. People hate him.
We're talking here about someone who could successfully garner really huge support and do things a huge majority would like.
What I'm wondering about is if anyone here can see why he was so successful and did so many things right and explain why he was a complete failure and psychopath. He's one of the most interesting people who's ever lived.
I have believed for a long time that the word "great" can in some ways apply to bad men. Hitler is the perfect example. He led people in incredible ways. He energized them. He motivated them. He gave them faith. He uplifted them.
He murdered them. He judged them. He sent armies against them. He was a bastion of hope. He was feared. He saved their economy. He destroyed families.
Hitler may very well be the greatest leader the world has ever seen. In that sense, in the historical sense, in his ability to rally a nation, to lift it up from abject misery and more, to instill pride, to stabilize and to create a fighting force, he was great.
The ability to lead is important. What needs to be understood (and never can be by the average person) is where that leadership is heading. Is the United States likely to ever see a leader in any way comparable to Hitler?
Note: This thread isn't comparing anyone to Hitler. Barack Obama has done some of the same things in terms of giving hope and stabilizing. The same can be said of Reagan. Ignoring his tyranny and lack of regard for human life (which are huge things to ignore), Hitler accomplished many of the goals people today seem to want accomplished. The issue I'm addressing here deals with only the ability to rally support and seem godlike.
Liberals: Don't bring up George Bush. People hated him.
Conservatives: Don't bring up Barack Obama. People hate him.
We're talking here about someone who could successfully garner really huge support and do things a huge majority would like.
What I'm wondering about is if anyone here can see why he was so successful and did so many things right and explain why he was a complete failure and psychopath. He's one of the most interesting people who's ever lived.
This post was edited on 1/11/14 at 7:43 am
12
Posted on 1/10/14 at 9:59 pm to FT
Germany was ripe for someone to assume the lead role in the aftermath of WWI.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:16 pm to FT
His speeches are unreal. The way he controls his tone, facial expressions, body language and hand movements is perfection.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:18 pm to weagle99
quote:
Germany was ripe for someone to assume the lead role in the aftermath of WWI.
It really was the perfect storm of events and circumstances, but the dude could capture a crowd.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:26 pm to FT
quote:
Hitler accomplished many of the goals people today seem to want accomplished.
Germany at the end of WWII was probably the most comprehensively defeated nation-state in modern times, and was kept partially alive only by the benevolence of its conquerors. Even Japan emerged with more of its pre-war elan intact.
His ideas were insipid, his goals obscene, his strategy nothing if not reliably idiotic. Hitler maintains a decent highlight reel as a public speaker while being a complete and utter failure as a head of state in every facet such a position can be measured.
He has been completely rejected by his own people, his cult of personality kept alive by fringe morons who are almost entirely from places other than Germany.
No, he wasn't a good leader. Or anything remotely close to one.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:39 pm to EmperorGout
Only a great leader could arouse that degree of support. Only a leader of that caliber could convince his people to fight to that terrible an end.
We agree that he ended as a failure and embarrassment. But only an astounding person could have caused that sort of mayhem.
We agree that he ended as a failure and embarrassment. But only an astounding person could have caused that sort of mayhem.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:44 pm to FT
Hitler promised to build a Paradise on Earth under the banner of Socialism (with nationalism thrown in for good measure).
National Socialism was a good example of how terrible leftism/socialism can be.
National Socialism was a good example of how terrible leftism/socialism can be.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:46 pm to FT
Should have stayed the hell out of Russia.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:52 pm to EmperorGout
quote:
No, he wasn't a good leader. Or anything remotely close to one.
just because the place to which a leader leads his flock is terrible doesn't mean he wasn't good at doing the leading.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:53 pm to Champagne
quote:What does that make Norway? Denmark? Switzerland?
National Socialism was a good example of how terrible leftism/socialism can be.
Certain models work in certain places with certain populations. Norway is, very simply, the best place on earth to be right now. It has been the UK in times past, and the US, and others. Norway is extraordinarily socialist right now, and it works. I'm not a socialist. I'm far from it. The point is that very different political constructs can be beneficial in certain environments. Leftism and Socialism had extremely little to do with Germany's ultimate failure. If anything, they may have been the only things keeping it going.
That's beside the point. We're talking about Hitler's ability to, beyond every conceivable notion, create a super power in a matter of a few very short years.
What he did was incredible and shouldn't be ignored. He managed to be the very definition of evil and lift a nation out of the worst of all possible situations. He's fascinating. We're talking about him and what he did, not abstract political concepts that sometimes work and sometimes don't.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 10:57 pm to Champagne
quote:
National Socialism was a good example of how terrible leftism/socialism can be.
but wait. my professors all told me conservatives are the Nazis. how can this be!
:mindblown:
just for fun:
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:03 pm to FT
His command of oratory and rhetoric was arguably the best ever recorded in history. Your links showed him specifically playing to the heartstrings of Germans who were paying debts of the Kaiser from WWI, he really played that well.
His conclusions about what should be done were another matter, but his ability to persuade others was second to none.
His conclusions about what should be done were another matter, but his ability to persuade others was second to none.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:04 pm to FT
Scandinavian countries are good at Socialism.
Ok.
Let's throw them some demographic changes and see how it works.
Ok.
Let's throw them some demographic changes and see how it works.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:05 pm to McLemore
That stolen seat joke is hilarious.
With regard to the merits of socialism/leftism in Norway and other small and cold nations - OP should really link us to some info showing how great things are there under leftism. Conclusory statements aren't persuasive.
Back to the Hitler speeches. I'm glad that great care was taken to create accurate translations, because Hitler's actual words make it pretty clear that he preached socialist collectivism and the need for the National State to impose socialist collectivism.
He also emphasized how important it was for every citizen to get on board with shared sacrifice for the good of the community.
This message has a lot in common with much of what we hear from the Democrat Party these latter days.
With regard to the merits of socialism/leftism in Norway and other small and cold nations - OP should really link us to some info showing how great things are there under leftism. Conclusory statements aren't persuasive.
Back to the Hitler speeches. I'm glad that great care was taken to create accurate translations, because Hitler's actual words make it pretty clear that he preached socialist collectivism and the need for the National State to impose socialist collectivism.
He also emphasized how important it was for every citizen to get on board with shared sacrifice for the good of the community.
This message has a lot in common with much of what we hear from the Democrat Party these latter days.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:07 pm to Scoop
quote:So socialism isn't fundamentally flawed.
Scandinavian countries are good at Socialism.
quote:What does that mean?
Let's throw them some demographic changes and see how it works.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:23 pm to FT
quote:
What does that mean?
Don't be coy.
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:23 pm to FT
quote:
So socialism isn't fundamentally flawed.
The promise of Socialism is that humankind, through the compulsion of an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent State, can build a Paradise on Earth.
It is indeed fundamentally flawed. The Founders and Framers got it right. The central government will have but limited and specifically enumerated authority and function.
Any significant deviation from the framework will lead to an intrusive, uncontrollable central government and tyranny -- kinda like what we have today here in the USA with FedGov.
This post was edited on 1/10/14 at 11:24 pm
Posted on 1/10/14 at 11:31 pm to FT
If it is possible to look at Hitler objectively, he is one of the most fascinating people in the history of humanity.
He was low born, a nobody in WW1 and imprisoned. He came through all of that to be probably one of the most significant human beings in the last 200 years.
He was low born, a nobody in WW1 and imprisoned. He came through all of that to be probably one of the most significant human beings in the last 200 years.
This post was edited on 1/10/14 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 1/11/14 at 12:01 am to FT
His speeches are amazing. Who knows what he could have done if he wasn't such an a-hole.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News